Miscellaneous desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 16

Advantage of playing American football with a deflated ball

Can someone explain why a partially deflated ball would be an advantage for one team, but not the other? I understand that you can grab the ball better, and consequently throw it better if it slightly less full. However, how does it come that this is not an advantage for both teams?--31.177.96.213 (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because each team uses its own set of footballs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of seeming an ignorant Brit, can I ask why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump:: Maybe you've seen this by now, maybe not, but here, apparently, is the answer to your question, from the deflategate article:

Prior to 2006, NFL custom was for the home team to provide all of the game footballs. In 2006, the rules were altered so that each team uses its own footballs while on offense. Teams rarely handle a football used by the other team except after recovering a fumble or interception. Tom Brady, quarterback of the New England Patriots (along with Peyton Manning, who was quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts in 2006), argued for the rules change for the express purpose of letting quarterbacks use footballs that suited them.

Now, the bit about "footballs that suited them" sounds all very tolerant and everything, and I suppose it's fair if both teams can do it, but the problem with it is that it's blatantly offense-centric (and even more specifically, QB-centric), which is one of the most irritating things about football in general these days. The solution is obvious: The NFL should rescind the unholy innovation of free substitution, and bring back the sixty-minute man. --Trovatore (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this is true. I would be interested to see a ref, if it is.

In any case, I think the point is that, while it may be an advantage to the offense of both teams, that advantage may not be equally distributed. If you have one QB who is especially bothered by stiff footballs, then that one may benefit from the deflation more than the opponents' QB does. --Trovatore (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, specifically, hand size has a lot to do with it. If you have big hands that can wrap around the football, it doesn't much matter how much it's inflated, but, for people with smaller hands, it's more of a problem to catch a hard football than a soft one. To help visualize this, try to picture catching a tennis ball in one hand versus a beach ball. You couldn't catch the beach ball unless it was so soft you could get your fingertips into it. Since a football isn't that large, less deflation is needed to make a difference. I wonder if Tom Brady has smaller hands than the other team. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if he smells like cabbage. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

See Deflategate for our article on the recent incident. Tevildo (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still, this article is written for people who have background information. I get that the game needs to be somehow asymmetrical for a deflated ball to be meaningful. If it were basketball the small hand/big hands of StuRat would still apply, somehow. But I have the impression that here there is something more significantly asymmetrical in the game. What is the asymmetry in American football? Isn't there an attack and counter-attack in Ame. football? Don't they lose control over the ball and have to defend their field? --31.177.96.213 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Prior to 2006, NFL custom was for the home team to provide all of the game footballs. In 2006, the rules were altered so that each team uses its own footballs while on offense. Teams rarely handle a football used by the other team except after recovering a fumble or interception." Whenever possession of the ball changes between teams, they switch out the physical ball. So, the Patriots allegedly tampered with their balls to gain an advantage. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. However, it's still true that, even if both sides used the same balls, the alleged conduct would still constitute "tamper[ing] with the balls to gain an advantage". --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an NFL rule. I don't know if it's true throughout all levels of football, but the NFL is the issue at hand.[1] This is from 2013, but as far as I know it was also valid this past season, since they referred to these facts during the initial "deflategate" discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the real answer to the 'why do the rules permit it' question is the same one as for all sports - because the rules define the sport, and if the rules were different it would be a different game. There isn't really much logic to it, once you accept per Bernard Suits that a game consists of "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles." [2] Rule-tinkering is probably mostly aimed at making the game more interesting by increasing or decreasing the magnitude of the obstacles. That and ensuring that the playing field isn't littered with corpses when the full-time whistle blows... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you haven't seen Rollerball (1975 film), Andy.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

19:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, seen it. I'm not sure that one can draw too many conclusions about sport from dystopian fiction though. The evidence seems to be that even in the most commercialised sports, fatalities are generally seen as a bad thing - if only because the fans don't actually appreciate witnessing deaths, and the sponsors may not appreciate having their products linked them either. 'Drink Bud and watch your hero get his neck broken' doesn't really work as advertising. In fact, I suspect that commercialisation may possibly even make sports safer, as much as it pains me to admit it. Formula 1 racing for example used to have an appalling rate of fatalities, but since the cars have become mobile advertising hoardings, safety has become a greater concern. There is no doubt in my mind at least that an element of danger makes a sport more attractive to spectators, but what they really seem to want is for it to look dangerous, but not actually be so (or at least, not as dangerous as it looks) - hence the bizarre NASCAR ritual of running around in close formation for 199 laps, having a humongous pile-up in the last lap, and declaring whoever still has four wheels the winner. It isn't Rollerball so much as a parody of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every rule has a reason behind it, and the quote cited farther up sort-of explains this one. Rules for a given sport are subject to negotiation, which is why the rules vary at different levels of the sport. Trovatore's complaint about the game being too offense-oriented may be a good "purist" argument, but the NFL is professional football, and they have calculated that offense sells tickets. In general, though, rules changes are typically used to achieve a desired level of balance between offense and defense. For example, tinkering with the distance and height of the pitching rubber in baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Rules for a given sport are subject to negotiation, which is why the rules vary at different levels of the sport." I suspect the degree of variation is greater in the US than elsewhere. For soccer, FIFA (or the IFAB) try to ensure the rules are the same at all levels and places, and US soccer leagues like the NASL have gotten into trouble for tinkering with them to appeal to its fanbase. (Of course, even in England, rules do vary: pub leagues don't have a fifth official.) jnestorius^(talk) 10:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Football is largely played in just America, so your reasoning makes sense. As to soccer, American leagues have probably tried to make the game more interesting. Other forms of football exist in places like Canada and Australia. I understand there are actually two versions of Rugby, though I don't know how different they are from each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different enough. Probably as different as outdoor American football is to Arena football; that is the two forms of Rugby are recognizable as close cousins, but there are enough rule differences that the game play is markedly different. --Jayron 32 19:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably much more different than the various levels of American football? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the articles, but Rugby league and Rugby union may shed some light on your darkness.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

13:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE: see Comparison of rugby league and rugby union (basically, in Rugby league, there's more running and less fighting in the mud). Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orgasm prevention

Is there a commercially available treatment or medicine that can prevent a man from reaching an orgasm? I ask this because I once took magic mushrooms and could not ejaculate no matter how long or hard I tried. It was deeply frustrating but in hindsight would make for incredible sex with a partner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.158.25.253 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Delayed ejaculation and orgasm control. Tevildo (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical castration.
Sleigh (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Various drugs are mentioned in priapism. Toulouse-Lautrec had priapism as a symptom of untreated syphilis.
Sleigh (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't give medical advice. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be too late for Toulouse-Lautrec anyway. He died a long time ago. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spending the evening with an insurance salesman should do the trick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]